I don't think anyone should have to be good at art to go to art school. I don't think anyone should have to be good at it beyond demonstrating that an understanding of the material taught to pass either.
Don't worry, I'm working on controlling my anger, I swear :P
lol Yeah, drawing... it's amazing how often art courses SAY that you need to be really good at drawing to get in... and then, well, plenty of greasy artists slip through the cracks :P
I believe that being an artist isn't so much a skill as an outlook on life. It's seeing the world in a certain, and wanting to portray it in a meaningful and thought/emtion-provoking way. And I would like to add aesthetically as well. But, see, THAT'S where my views on art and contemporary seem to differ. Shit on a stool in an art gallery--is that supposed to be aesthetically pleasing? God I hope not. And yes, I realize a contemporary artist would argue it isn't about looking 'pretty', blah blah blah. But that's how I like my art.
Hmm, just musing now... if art of this time period is called 'contemporary', and video game art is more widely becoming seen as art form--does it get a time period title as well? Hummm.
Is an elephant pretty? No, but there is a certain majesty and wonder to the animal. For some, grotesquerie is not repulsive, but pleasant and interesting as the opposite of beauty.
Ok, this is sorta missing my point... I don't mean pretty as pretty necassarily. I mean more that there is something for the viewer to see that invokes a certain pleasure in the visual viewing of the art. Whether it be cause something is 'pretty', or 'cool' or grotesque in an awesome way.
Whereas, I'm saying, a lot of concept art (ie. urinal in a museum) is a random piece of crap that your eyes don't look at for any sort of pleasure.
...Am I even making sense anymore? I like when people use their skills to make something that looks cool, not throw a blank canvas together, ok?
Actually, Mezz, yes. It reminds me of the quote: "Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it makes visible."
If people can find beauty in the urinal by looking at it differently in an exhibit than looking at it in the bathroom, sure. Personally, I find such interest in the world around me every day; an artist learns to see things in this way, and in creating art, he makes it visible to others. Of course, the urinal is not something he created. But perhaps he gave people a chance of looking at it differently.
Sigh, yes, I do understand that. And I understand the art of giving a different perspective, by bringing something into a new environment so people may try to understand it differently. But I guess it just comes down to me thinking, despite all the thought process, its still just a urinal in a museum.
So really, it comes down to not being in my taste. Which I guess does actually make a lot of sense, since art is very subjective. Following that logic, I can see contemporary art as a real form of art, just one I don't personally care for.
... But it still bugs me when talentless people pull crap together and call themselves artists.
Poo on stool (lulz pun!) in a museum is less art and more of a jab at the philosophy of art.
I dislike when that's all someone does... and talk non-stop about it.
I also have some personal grudges against some more-philosopher-than-artist-smoke-weed-expand-your-mind-more-talk-less-art types I've shared classes with. I doubt they really learned anything about art in school.
Maybe I'm too practical, but when I go to museums I don't want to see a urinal or poo on a stool, I want to see some badass paintings, drawings and sculptures and the like. I've come away from some contemporary museums feeling it was a waste of time (and money, mine or the school's), like one in Chicago last year that had sections of buildings chainsawed out and hung on the wall and random debris. I spent more time at the AI looking at an ancient Korean bangle than I did in the whole Contemporary museum.
But to each his own.... if you like poo on a stool and it destroys your entire perception of the artistic world and it's history, then more power to you.
Daaark - thats like saying you would let someone who is illiterate on to an English literature. course and once on the course they just have to know who charles dickens is to pass.
There's a huge difference. Someone who can draw, but can't draw 'well' can still be a great artist.
But Charles Schultz can draw Daaark( very well). Are you saying that the drawing is bad in charley brown is poor?, because I am thinkin not.
perhaps a poor example really:)
But Charles Schultz can draw Daaark( very well). Are you saying that the drawing is bad in charley brown is poor?, because I am thinkin not.
perhaps a poor example really:)
No, his drawing isn't poor, because he gets across the message he intended to. It's "poor" because he can't draw a perfectly shaped figure, he has no sense of depth or perspective, etc, etc..
I didn't say someone who can't draw should pass art school. I said they should show that they understand all the material, like any class.
No, his drawing isn't poor, because he gets across the message he intended to. It's "poor" because he can't draw a perfectly shaped figure, he has no sense of depth or perspective, etc, etc..
I didn't say someone who can't draw should pass art school. I said they should show that they understand all the material, like any class.
The drawing isnt poor, and it doesnt have a sense of depth or perspective because it is stylised. Its made that way intentionally. there is no way for you to tell looking at that cartoon image what the capability of the artist is.
and it doesnt have a sense of depth or perspective because it is stylised. Its made that way intentionally.
I realize that. I'm a fan of his art by the way. I use that as an emoticon when I trick someone or get tricked in a post in a post.
I was using that as an example image of what I was talking about. IF that was his highest potential as an artist, I believe he should have still been able to pass through art school.
Poo on stool (lulz pun!) in a museum is less art and more of a jab at the philosophy of art.
Hahaha awesome, thanks for finding more wit in my comments than I actually have!
And I agree with your points.
I don't think comic strips are really primarily about how good the drawings are/can be, so I'm not sure it was the best example in this case. But seriously, I think a lot of Art schools/art programs at Universities can be a huge joke. Plenty of students REALLY don't need any actual talent, just can show that your portoflio has "in depth thought process" or whatever.
I can understand wanting to forgo creating something realistic to make a point, but I'd have much more respect for artists if they could actually make something good first. Back to the earlier mentioned point of "first learn the rules, then you can break them"
Replies
YEAH!
Marcel Duchamp rules dude!
He's the Tyler Durden of art.
~~ Amazine ~~
With this one little phrase, you just changed my mind and made me a contemporary art fan.
*neon says = all art has been contemporary*
its true. think about it.
course and once on the course they just have to know who charles dickens is to pass.
Or any martial artist developing a style that guarantees an ass wooping to the user.
Well yes, and all building that are being built are 'modern', but that doesn't mean all buildings are 'modern architecture'.
Contemporary art refers to a style and time period in my mind, the same as the renaissance period.
Yup yup
"Modern Art" is art created roughly between the early-mid 1800's to sometime in the 70's.
It's just the name of the era.
Everything after that could be called "Contemporary", or "Post-Relevant".
lol Yeah, drawing... it's amazing how often art courses SAY that you need to be really good at drawing to get in... and then, well, plenty of greasy artists slip through the cracks :P
I believe that being an artist isn't so much a skill as an outlook on life. It's seeing the world in a certain, and wanting to portray it in a meaningful and thought/emtion-provoking way. And I would like to add aesthetically as well. But, see, THAT'S where my views on art and contemporary seem to differ. Shit on a stool in an art gallery--is that supposed to be aesthetically pleasing? God I hope not. And yes, I realize a contemporary artist would argue it isn't about looking 'pretty', blah blah blah. But that's how I like my art.
Hmm, just musing now... if art of this time period is called 'contemporary', and video game art is more widely becoming seen as art form--does it get a time period title as well? Hummm.
Whereas, I'm saying, a lot of concept art (ie. urinal in a museum) is a random piece of crap that your eyes don't look at for any sort of pleasure.
...Am I even making sense anymore? I like when people use their skills to make something that looks cool, not throw a blank canvas together, ok?
If people can find beauty in the urinal by looking at it differently in an exhibit than looking at it in the bathroom, sure. Personally, I find such interest in the world around me every day; an artist learns to see things in this way, and in creating art, he makes it visible to others. Of course, the urinal is not something he created. But perhaps he gave people a chance of looking at it differently.
So really, it comes down to not being in my taste. Which I guess does actually make a lot of sense, since art is very subjective. Following that logic, I can see contemporary art as a real form of art, just one I don't personally care for.
... But it still bugs me when talentless people pull crap together and call themselves artists.
I dislike when that's all someone does... and talk non-stop about it.
I also have some personal grudges against some more-philosopher-than-artist-smoke-weed-expand-your-mind-more-talk-less-art types I've shared classes with. I doubt they really learned anything about art in school.
Maybe I'm too practical, but when I go to museums I don't want to see a urinal or poo on a stool, I want to see some badass paintings, drawings and sculptures and the like. I've come away from some contemporary museums feeling it was a waste of time (and money, mine or the school's), like one in Chicago last year that had sections of buildings chainsawed out and hung on the wall and random debris. I spent more time at the AI looking at an ancient Korean bangle than I did in the whole Contemporary museum.
But to each his own.... if you like poo on a stool and it destroys your entire perception of the artistic world and it's history, then more power to you.
they try and distance themselves from that by trying to make art in to form that no one
apart for the intellectual can understand.
I remember some arty type saying that steven wiltshire is not really an artist, because
although he is technically skilled, he can't be considered truly great because he may lack the
intellectual capacity to rationalize what he is doing.
http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/
A lot of universities still frown upon the teaching of specific techniques on art courses as they
think it devalues the intellectual aspects of the degree.
Thats why most artist leave uni without the technical skill required to get a job in the real
world.
Its odd how we are always told to be open minded about modern art or 'post modern art'
as it is now ( might even be 'post post modern'),
but most of these people hate proper artists, ie figuraitve artists and won't give that style of work any credance
Example:
perhaps a poor example really:)
I didn't say someone who can't draw should pass art school. I said they should show that they understand all the material, like any class.
My wife is a good cartoonist and has a very loose style, but she can draw superb realistic stuff too.
To be fair you did say 'I don't think anyone should have to be good at art to go to art school'
The drawing isnt poor, and it doesnt have a sense of depth or perspective because it is stylised. Its made that way intentionally. there is no way for you to tell looking at that cartoon image what the capability of the artist is.
I was using that as an example image of what I was talking about. IF that was his highest potential as an artist, I believe he should have still been able to pass through art school.
Hahaha awesome, thanks for finding more wit in my comments than I actually have!
And I agree with your points.
I don't think comic strips are really primarily about how good the drawings are/can be, so I'm not sure it was the best example in this case. But seriously, I think a lot of Art schools/art programs at Universities can be a huge joke. Plenty of students REALLY don't need any actual talent, just can show that your portoflio has "in depth thought process" or whatever.
I can understand wanting to forgo creating something realistic to make a point, but I'd have much more respect for artists if they could actually make something good first. Back to the earlier mentioned point of "first learn the rules, then you can break them"